You know, I've heard Liberals and New Democrats say they'll create a registry that isn't a criminal registry. What they don't tell you, then, is that it would be unconstitutional, because the only basis—

Rather than talking about the past or the future, I'd like to talk about what's before us today—namely, the regulations dealing with records of sale.

I want to go back through this with you. To me, the records of sale pre-existed the registry. They weren't used to create the registry. They're kept routinely by gun shops. They're not in any electronic form so that they could be searched. They're accessible only by warrant.

If this regulation goes ahead, aren't you really creating a big hole in the only potential source of information we have about non-restricted weapons that might be used in gun crimes?

No. I don't agree with that at all. If shop owners are keeping records, those records are accessible by warrant and not by a bureaucrat exercising that type of unilateral power to not only go into businesses; they could also, under the Firearms Act, go into homes, which is quite disturbing.

I'm talking about the records of sale. I'm not talking about the pre-existing registry.

To me, I see a scenario where there's a crime committed with a non-registered weapon. The manufacturer might say, well, that gun was shipped to this gun shop, and the gun shop owner says, “I love the minister. He told me I didn't have to keep these records, so we don't have them”.

What do you say to the police and prosecutors who are trying to prosecute that crime? What do you say to the victims of that crime? Is it, “Oh, we decided that wasn't essential information and people didn't have to keep it”?